Dear members, 
 
We've all been there: you're having a conversation, waxing lyrical to someone about your profession or passion, and you mention the term 'depth psychology'....only to be met with a blank, quizzical look.
 
For sure, depth psychology has transformed since Freud, Jung, Bleuler and others developed it over the course of the past century. Right now, we (the Alliance board members) are having a conversation about what depth psychology actually is.
 
In the spirit of opening up the conversation to you, our members, we would like to know:
 
How do you define 'depth psychology'?
 
Do you have a favourite/preferred definition?
 
How would you define the term 'depth psychology' in, say, 30 seconds?
 
Please post your definition for us to see here - and feel free to comment on each other's responses! 
 
Your answers will help us in a little exercise we're engaging in to make the Alliance grow and flourish.
Warmly,
The Alliance board 

You need to be a member of Depth Psychology Alliance to add comments!

Join Depth Psychology Alliance

Email me when people reply –

Replies

      • John, you may be on to something. Most of us are talking about windows INTO the depth: myth; countertransference; poetry; ceremony. Even the words sacred and profane speaks only to the surface of our experience. Why have we not defined THE DEPTH itself (I think there are good reasons; it is difficult to approach directly)? I agree that "depth" implies a topographical approach, so there must be a deeper layer to our topography. 

        As far as agreements/disagreements: I am well trained in the Freudian tradition, with a further honing from some other schools (more Klein than Jung). Nevertheless, as I said, I agree with Pamela DeRossitte's description. Pamela uses different terms than I would. But I think my world of projective identification and the clinical situation treated as a type of dream-like experience would fit within what Pamela is describing as attention to archetypes and learning from wisdom traditions. At least I assume there is common ground there. For instance, is Aleksandar Malecic talking about the mother of the Oedipal Complex or the Earth Mother; I think both, and something transcendent to both of those schools of thought.

      • I am a layman in psychology considering my education, but in my opinion depth psychology is also about someone's willingness to go farther down the rabbit hole. Freud was "eating" cigars (those the worst for your health) and had a cocaine phase in his life. Mind you, Jung deserves to be criticized for seducing his patient(s), but both Freud and Jung are important as pioneers of depth psychology. They have found a language for creative people and daydreamers to express to other people and themselves what is happening to them on a daily basis. 

        About Freud's obsession with sexuality - I have two parents, and when I was a child they were my whole world. I saw in them all other men and women. This doesn't mean that my mother attracts me (there are some seriously unattractive mothers out there), but she did influence my attitude toward women (attractive or not) in general, just as my father influenced my attitude toward other men and society in general. That whole idea that the "make love with your mother, kill your father" is the origin of all consciousness is, in my opinion, actually a misinterpretation of causes and effects. I have instincts to fight for my place under the Sun and have children with a fine woman (especially if my mother (the female half of the world) is a nice person) and they seem to me like a more fundamental reason why I behave the way I do than the story about king Oedipus. Also, sexuality is just one (repressed in modern humans) way to achieve pleasure. I need to eat some good food before having sex, you know?

  • Thanks, Mark. As you know, this has been under discussion by the board since we convened a couple of months ago. Esther Waldron, however, is the one who took the initiative to post this here for community discussion.

    I might just stipulate here for the benefit of everyone reading this that the idea is not to nail down a definition (though it might be nice to find a clear description that anyone will "get" in 30 seconds--the good old "elevator pitch they call that in marketing).

    Rather, the idea is to open it up and see what is revealed. Like a diamond, there are countless facets of what depth psychology means to any individual. It would be great to see many of those ideas, impressions and insgihts represented here, allowing depth psychology to share itself through our many voices....
    • Before we get too possessive of the term from a Jungian standpoint, let us not forget the term was coined by Bleuler and as far as I can tell, the usage was based around approaches that contained the unconscious. This includes Freud, Otto Rank, Klein, [arguably] Adler, William James, Janet, and more. However the discussion goes, let us be aware of whatever biases we may be bringing to the table.

  • Thanks for asking the question Bonnie! I really hope people will offer their candid or canned, sacred or mundane, goofy or serious, contextual and historical or purely experiential and phenomenological responses to this question...What is depth psychology?  

This reply was deleted.